Simon Kinberg thinks there will be a Fantastic Four sequel

@yonny616 If you're you going by Batman and Superman, that's because those two characters can get away with it due to their popularity. Where as Fantastic Four is a more tricky franchise to adapt into film. Since there has NEVER been a good Fantastic Four movie before, and the general audience just doesn't care. Fantastic Four needs to be treated a lot more carefully and take the time to get it right. But they never do that because Fox just rush these things out just so that they can keep the rights. Both Marvel and WB KNOW what formula works for their properties, and THAT'S why they can get away with rushing films out. Where as Fox, they don't know how to make Fantastic Four work. You don't need 7 years to make a good Fantastic Four movie. But after this reboot, you really need to let this franchise have a good long recovery. That's not going to happen though, since Fox need to work on another one fast or else they lose the rights. As for the Iron Man thing, it still disproves your point. Also, no. But you seem to ignore it, and just claim that all you need is 3 or 4 years of development. When the reality is there is so many factors into making a film.

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 If you're you going by Batman and Superman, that's because those two characters can get away with it due to their popularity. Where as Fantastic Four is a more tricky franchise to adapt into film. Since there has NEVER been a good Fantastic Four movie before, and the general audience just doesn't care. Fantastic Four needs to be treated a lot more carefully and take the time to get it right. But they never do that because Fox just rush these things out just so that they can keep the rights. Both Marvel and WB KNOW what formula works for their properties, and THAT'S why they can get away with rushing films out. Where as Fox, they don't know how to make Fantastic Four work. You don't need 7 years to make a good Fantastic Four movie. But after this reboot, you really need to let this franchise have a good long recovery. That's not going to happen though, since Fox need to work on another one fast or else they lose the rights. As for the Iron Man thing, it still disproves your point. Also, no. But you seem to ignore it, and just claim that all you need is 3 or 4 years of development. When the reality is there is so many factors into making a film.

Which is why their reboots barely doubled they budget. Batman got away with it because his film was good. Superman.... not so much. F4 isn't "tricky" to adapt. And all it takes for them to "care" is one entertaining film. 7 years is hardly rushing, but okay. I guess that's why GL/Hulk did great, because WB/Marvel knew what worked for them. I agree, you don't need 7 years. Nope. Not really since it had nothing to do with my point and also New Line returned Iron Man to Marvel, time didn't run out for them. So moot "point" is moot. Never said that's all they need. I have explicitly 4 years to hear pitches 3 years to produces. That makes up the 7 years they have. Do you read above a 3rd grade level?

@yonny616 Man of Steel still made more money at the box-office than all of the Marvel's Phase One movies besides The Avengers, despite the mixed reviews. Superhero rarely can get away with something like that. Fantastic Four is tricky to adapt when you goof'd like 3 or 4 times, and only have limited amount of time to make another one that actually good. Green Lantern and Hulk (lol, they're both green) were made before these "cinematic universe" franchises even began. New Line Cinema gave the rights because the development of the film fell through. Similar to how Daredevil fell through at Fox. How do you know the time didn't run out for them? Do you read the contract or something? But what if Fox doesn't like none of the pitches from other filmmakers? Because they were going through pitches with Daredevil as well, and look how that turned out. May I reminder how wrong you were about Sony continuing with The Sinister Six?

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 Man of Steel still made more money at the box-office than all of the Marvel's Phase One movies besides The Avengers, despite the mixed reviews. Superhero rarely can get away with something like that. Fantastic Four is tricky to adapt when you goof'd like 3 or 4 times, and only have limited amount of time to make another one that actually good. Green Lantern and Hulk (lol, they're both green) were made before these "cinematic universe" franchises even began. New Line Cinema gave the rights because the development of the film fell through. Similar to how Daredevil fell through at Fox. How do you know the time didn't run out for them? Do you read the contract or something? But what if Fox doesn't like none of the pitches from other filmmakers? Because they were going through pitches with Daredevil as well, and look how that turned out. May I reminder how wrong you were about Sony continuing with The Sinister Six?

I wasn't talking about Man of Steel. Okay? Wrong Hulk, Green Lantern was the beginning of the DCCU originally. Yeah, similar. Because apparently they were bought by Marvel. Yes, I made the negotiations. Then too bad for Fox. What?

May I... Reminder? You'd think Mecha knew English, lol.

@yonny616 But you said, and I quote, "Batman got away with it because his film was good. Superman.... not so much." No it wasn't. There were references to Batman and Superman in each others films all the time. Not to mention the fact that WB were finally going to have them crossover in the Superman Lives movie. But the point is, WB has finally found a formula that works for them, despite their previous fails. The same can not be said for Fox with Fantastic Four. Also what do you mean, wrong Hulk? The Incredible Hulk got positive reviews didn't it? Daredevil wasn't bought by Marvel. Fox just failed to go into production with a new Daredevil film. YEAH, too bad for Fox.

@RamboOnRedBull I'm going through some bad side effects at the moment, lol!

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 But you said, and I quote, "Batman got away with it because his film was good. Superman.... not so much." No it wasn't. There were references to Batman and Superman in each others films all the time. Not to mention the fact that WB were finally going to have them crossover in the Superman Lives movie. But the point is, WB has finally found a formula that works for them, despite their previous fails. The same can not be said for Fox with Fantastic Four. Also what do you mean, wrong Hulk? The Incredible Hulk got positive reviews didn't it? Daredevil wasn't bought by Marvel. Fox just failed to go into production with a new Daredevil film. YEAH, too bad for Fox.

@RamboOnRedBull I'm going through some bad side effects at the moment, lol!

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean Returns never happened. Yes, yes it was and [Ryan Reynolds'] Green Lantern was suppose to crossover in The Flash film that was going to happen. And all your Batman/Superman talk lead to what point? Okay, "finally". Again, okay. Yes, but the "seriousness" didn't work well with audiences, and is jarringly different from the rest of the MCU and the character is even different in Avengers. I was talking about Iron Man, not Daredevil.

Mecha wrote:

@RamboOnRedBull I'm going through some bad side effects at the moment, lol!

If it wasn't for bad side effects, I wouldn't have any booze intakes. 

@yonny616 When did I say Superman Returns never happened? Green Lantern and The Flash wasn't the first planned DC crossover though. My point is that Batman and Superman already existed in the same universe before. Maybe The Incredible Hulk didn't do well with audiences because it got rebooted too soon and people still had a bad taste in their mouths from Ang Lee's Hulk? I was using Daredevil as an example. You love making examples don't you?

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 When did I say Superman Returns never happened?

The joke went over your head, but I was talking about Returns, not MoS, when I said "Superman... not so much".

Quote :

Green Lantern and The Flash wasn't the first planned DC crossover though.

Did I say they were? I was obviously talking about the previous planned DC universe.

Quote :

Maybe The Incredible Hulk didn't do well with audiences because it got rebooted too soon and people still had a bad taste in their mouths from Ang Lee's Hulk?

Or because, just like 2003's Hulk, it didn't resonate with audiences and people don't find the character as entertaining on his own.

Quote :

I was using Daredevil as an example. You love making examples don't you?

To what? You mention Iron Man to prove something that had nothing to do with my original point, I said New Line gave [Iron Man] back, you asked how I knew that, I said it was reported Marvel bought [Iron Man], to which for some reason you replied "Murvel didnt bai DureDehbil".

@yonny616 1. But Superman still got away with it though, despite Superman Returns.

2. "Green Lantern was the beginning of the DCCU originally" Then explain that.

3. Can't you say the same about Fantastic Four as well?

4. New Line Cinema failed to develop Iron Man, just like how Fox failed to reboot Daredevil though.

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 1. But Superman still got away with it though, despite Superman Returns.

Not so much.

Quote :

2. "Green Lantern was the beginning of the DCCU originally" Then explain that.

Wow, I didn't specify. I mean it's not like you, of all people, couldn't come to the conclusion as to which DCCU I was talking about.

Quote :

3. Can't you say the same about Fantastic Four as well?

No, because both Hulk films have been positively received and both have the exact same average critic rating.

Quote :

4. New Line Cinema failed to develop Iron Man, just like how Fox failed to reboot Daredevil though.

Yes, and Marvel bought Iron man back for the MCU like they bought Hulk,or at least half, back.

@yonny616 1. Yeah, because making more than all of the Marvel Phase One movies, besides The Avengers, isn't much at all.

2. Doesn't matter. The old DCCU plan has nothing to do with the DCEU.

3. I thought you said Hulk didn't resonate with audiences and people don't find the character as entertaining on his own?

4. They never bought Iron Man. New Line just failed and gave the rights back.

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 1. Yeah, because making more than all of the Marvel Phase One movies, besides The Avengers, isn't much at all.

Yes, barely, essentially, especially when it's the icon going up against "c-list" characters.

Quote :

2. Doesn't matter. The old DCCU plan has nothing to do with the DCEU.

Doesn't matter? I thought they knew the formula. Even then TDK formula didn't work as well as they hoped.

Quote :

3. I thought you said Hulk didn't resonate with audiences and people don't find the character as entertaining on his own?

Yeah, "b-but positive reviews", essentially what I was saying is they find him pretty boring on his own and that audiences didn't find the films anything special.

Quote :

4. They never bought Iron Man. New Line just failed and gave the rights back.

Yes they did. This is the closest thing I could find from it: "In 2005 they sold the rights back to Marvel where they announced Iron Man would be their first self-financed film". - SHH


And I'm done considering this has gone long enough.

@yonny616 It should be an achievement that it was able to make that much considering the fact that people were still disappointed by Superman Returns, got mixed reviews, and is the first movie in the DCEU.

2. Seems to work well with the general audience.

3. Well what matters most is the  audiences. Since they're the ones that bring in the money. So for them, they don't care about both Fantastic Four and Hulk.

4. I guess. Still not much different to what happened to Fox with Daredevil though. Only difference is that New Line was smart by making some money out of it at least. Where as Fox got nothing when they lost the rights.